Ah but I bet you're one of the people that advocates the murder of human souls in the womb. if so you're demented. you're literally more worried about food than your own species.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

"Claiming to be at the top of the food chain has become a popular justification for eating animal products and an affirmation of our ability to violently dominate everything and everyone. Yet justifications for needless violence that draw on notions of power and supremacy are based on the philosophy of “Might makes right” — the principle behind the worst atrocities and crimes of human history."

"We humans are not at the top of anything. We are merely part of an interdependent web of life that forms complex yet fragile ecosystems. We choose to either participate in the protection of these natural systems, or to destroy them at our own peril. The concept of a food chain is a human construct that imposes a rigid and competitive hierarchy among species, rather than a good faith understanding of the complexity of the ecosystems to which we belong. Selectively appealing to biological determinism also ignores the fact that we are moral agents. By choosing plant foods, we can get our nutrients through primary sources of nourishment, in the most environmentally friendly and resource-efficient way possible, minimizing our harm to other animals, humans and the planet."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/breaking-food-chain-myth/

I always forget to not bother arguing with vegans. You simply cannot argue with extremists of any type and expect to change their attitudes. Sadly, we as a species tend to feel our way is better no matter what.

So, in the spirit of live and let live, be vegan if you like. Just let the rest of us find our own way without proselytizing.

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

i am vegan BECAUSE i do not consider myself superior to others,regardless of their species. when looked at logically and without the inherent blinders of our culture, the one's who truly consider themselves superior are the one's who believe that feeling beings have to suffer and die for their taste preferences. your statements completely disregard the viewpoint of the victims who have no choice in their own suffering and death. since it is indisputable that the cows, pigs, chickens and fishes whom people consume feel pain and want to live, there is no moral justification for exploiting and killing them in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

the only consistent ethical position is to reject all forms of violence and exploitation rather than limiting one's concern for a select few species. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, it is never humane or justifiable to force another to experience it. veganism is not about perfection but is about doing the least harm possible. the truth is that when any animal product is consumed, sentient non-human animals suffer and die as a result of it. it is only by being disconnected from the reality of it that one continues to support such heinous violence.

Well, since most sci-fi says the invaders are coming for our water, they start from a huge mistake. If aliens wanted water, they would certainly harvest the rings of Saturn first...they're nearly pure water, they're already in space, and there's no violent species to eradicate before you can have them.

That said, I think any galactic travelers would have to be planetary parasites to exist. With inter system travel taking tens-thousands of years, replenishing ship stores at every opportunity would be a necessity.

That section also serves as a wonderful point of comparison between the species.

not really-life = sentient life is the only assertion which i clarified and this assumption was stated from the beginning so was implied. the suggestion that this changes everything is a classic straw man fallacy.

the imperatives which i am espousing on are merely non-violence and a rejection of oppression, exploitation and using others as property and economic commodities which almost every human believes when it concerns humans and perhaps a few other species. it is only the others whom should be considered under the umbrella of moral concern which is the key point of the issue for most people.

as far as the population, the main reason WHY the human population IS such an issue is due to the consumption of animal products. along with the obvious moral and ethical issues of murdering other sentient beings, the production of animal based foods requires many times the resources to produce an equivalent calorie compared to plant based food which drives things like climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, biodiversity, species extinction and other aspects of environmental devastation.

when a video such as this one comes up which highlights people being kind to an animal, it is disturbing that people are so disconnected that they do not make the connection between the animals in the video whom they feel good about being rescued and the countless others which are being tortured and murdered for their dinner plate. this is exactly what the short article i posed above articulates so well.

“Ask ten people on the street if they think it’s wrong to injure or kill animals for one’s amusement or pleasure, and nine or ten will say yes, of course. Chances are all ten of those people freely consume animal products, simply because they like to and they’re used to doing it." - Karen Manfrede

Huh, Japanese cicadas (there are several species) appear every summer and are (volume alert) loud as fuck every time. I'd forgotten they only show up in big numbers every 13-17 years in the U.S. Consider yourselves lucky, U.S. residents!

Show a dozen different people the same event and you can get a dozen different feelings or reactions. But on the internet you had better make sure you show the right kind of reaction or risk being attacked for it. If they brought these guys in without letting them know what they were really in for then it's ambush TV at it's finest.

The shame responses in these guys were pretty clear and I thought that making them take on the shame and guilt that rightfully belongs to another seems cruel and manipulative to me.

Guys often feel the need to take responsibility, it doesn't matter what it is or even if they really were responsible. And so they drag these guys out in front of millions and proceed to make them feel as responsible as they can. And really , all men are responsible for these things anyhow, right?

This video is meant to instruct? You mean like how you are supposed to react? And if you deviate from this response in any way whatsoever you are not human anymore or something?

Being human means that you are a creature of both thought and feeling, emotional reactions can either be compassionate as in this case or deadly when someone commits a crime of passion. Both our hearts and our heads will be needed if we want to continue as a species.

@eric3579
I don't know any of these men, but I know that were I in this situation I would feel like a bug under someone's microscope. (of course you'd never get me in front of a camera, knowingly at least) For what it's worth, I feel bad for everyone involved in this mess. The women were subjected to things that nobody should have to put up with, told things that were cruel, stupid and pointless. (but humans are so good at all three of those things) The men were tricked into someone's drama fueled media spectacle and suffered for something they had nothing to do with.
Not that any of that matters, in your professional opinion I'm probably just a garden variety psychopath.

Just to point out, I didn't say that. I'm not taking a moral cue from how animals behave. I'm saying our species and precursors have a long history of eating meat and it turned out pretty good for us.

(aka - my ancestors are smiling down at me imperial, can you say the same?!)

For the record if i had to kill my own food, i would have no problem with that. I'd rather pay someone to do it for me - yes. But if i needed food and could get my hands on an animal, you better believe i'm sleeping on a full stomach that night.

But as for eating less bacon if you had to slaughter the pig - if you were a farmer, settler or nomad or something and you had pigs you'd probably eat lots of bacon. In society right now, it's pretty unrealistic to slaughter your own pig if you live in an average suburb. It makes more sense to buy bacon than slaughter a pig for most people right now, but there are situations when the opposite would be true and i don't think it would bother me (or you).

Not really though, there are enough people who are fond of cows that we would no doubt keep them alive as pets and zoo animals. Like all the other animals that are extinct in the wild but not in captivity.

Their numbers would certainly dwindle, but I think there's no suffering in not having been born. Besides, if you're concerned about biodiversity the number of species eradicated by expanding pasture land has got to be in the 1,000s, especially in places like rainforests.

"I covered this entire planet once."

I didn't know that and doubted it, so I googled. Link says that before around 1 billion years ago, water (ocean) covered 95% of the surface of the earth, and then continents erupted relatively quickly, geologically speaking.

However, I think that 95% coverage figure (and possibly more earlier on?) would mostly be owed to the crust and mantle being relatively flat and smooth after cooling down from being a largely molten ball very early on. Now that the earth has cooled enough to allow plate tectonics to push stuff around and create subduction zones and mountain ranges, there are too many high-elevation points (and low elevation chasms for the ocean to fill in) for the ocean to ever cover the entire earth again. Even if all of the ice on the earth melted, apparently sea level would only rise by about 70 meters / 230 feet.

So the "and I can always cover it again" bit at the end is a bit overstated. We'd almost certainly be dead as a species if conditions were extreme enough to melt all of the ice around the world, but not because of being drowned off of dry land to live on.